Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1.2. Classification
In three-dimensional space, there are eight degrees of freedom, which means
eight independent parameters are required to assign a mathematically exact
definition to a given grain boundary [9]. Three parameters are necessary to
define the orientation relationship between two adjacent grains which are
usually represented by an Euler angle triplet (M1, ), M2), by Miller indices or by
an angle-axis pair in Rodrigues-Frank space [2, 3, 4].
Two more parameters are needed to define the spatial orientation of the grain
boundary plane, i.e. the boundary inclination, which are expressed by the
normalized crystallographic normal vector of the plane of inclination n = (n1, n2,
4
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
n3) with respect to one of the adjacent grains. Additional to these five
macroscopic parameters there are three independent values of the microscopic
translational vector t = (t1, t2, t3) [2]. All intrinsic properties of grain boundaries,
particularly mobility and energy, are functions of these eight parameters [1]. The
five macroscopic parameters may be influenced externally, whereas the
translational vector t is determined by the minimum of the total energy of the
crystal.
To determine the dependence of grain boundary properties on the five
macroscopic parameters introduced above, it would be necessary to keep all but
one degree of freedom constant and successively vary one free parameter [1, 2].
However, under realistic experimental conditions only one set of parameters
may remain at a fixed value. The most common investigation procedure
therefore is to change an orientation relationship by varying the rotation angle
and keeping the plane of inclination fixed with respect to a reference point or
vice versa while preserving one common axis of rotation [1].
5
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
^Ci `
^ `
gm Cj
(1.1)
^ `
where ^Ci ` and C j are the crystal coordinate systems. The easiest way to
describe such a rotation matrix is in terms of a rotation axis <hkl> common for
both lattice coordinate systems and a rotation angle T (Fig. 1-1), since for many
z z
uvtw !
x
y
x
Fig. 1-1:
6
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
boundaries is that the rotation axis is aligned parallel to the boundary plane [1].
Consequently, an infinite number of possible grain boundary planes exists for a
given rotation angle. Further, one distinguishes between two types of grain
boundary within the class of tilt boundaries. Under the special conditions that
mirror symmetry is satisfied between two adjacent grains, the boundary is
labeled as a symmetrical tilt boundary (Fig. 1-2 c). All other configurations are
denoted as asymmetrical tilt boundaries (Fig. 1-2 b) [1].
rotation axis
(a)
grain
boundary
(b)
symmetry plane
[uvtw]1
[uvtw]2
grain
boundary
tilt axis and
(c)
boundary
plane
grain boundary
rotation axis
Fig. 1-2:
Grain boundaries that do not satisfy either of the criteria of the first two
classes are termed mixed or random grain boundaries and consist of both twist
and tilt components.
7
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
b
d
2 sin
T
2
(2.1)
8
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
boundary
bA
d = b/MT
grain 1
grain 2
6
5
4
3
measured
. .10 -8
40
d= M
2
1
M
T
0
0
(a)
(b)
2
3
4
4
tilt angle [10 rad]
For asymmetrical tilt grain boundaries (Fig. 1-2 b), in which the boundary
plane deviates from its symmetrical position by an inclination angle M (Fig. 14), at least two sets of edge dislocations are necessary to accommodate the
boundary configuration. The Burgers vector of these two dislocation sets must
be perpendicular to each other (Fig. 1-4 a) and with increasing asymmetry, the
fraction of the second set of dislocations ( b2 ) has to increase,
1
d2
b2
T sin M
(2.2)
9
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
a)
b)
uvtw !1
M 1 / 2T
T/2
plane of symmetry
T/2
M
M 1 / 2T
uvtw ! 2
Fig. 1-4:
boundary plane
b1
1
d1 T cosM
(2.3)
Small angle twist boundaries require two sets of screw dislocations and in the
most general case of mixed LAGBs the boundary structure is comprised of
dislocation networks of three Burgers vectors [5]. By applying this dislocation
model of LAGBs, which was developed by Read and Shockley [6], the exact
calculation of free grain boundary energy is possible. As derived by Read and
Shockley, the stress field of dislocations in an infinite periodic array is spatially
limited to a range of the order of spacing d . In case of an edge dislocation its
energy Ed per unit length is thus expressed by:
10
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
Ed
Pb 2
d
ln Ec
4S 1 Q r0
(2.4)
where Q is the Poisson ratio, P the shear modulus, r0 | b the radius and Ec the
energy of the dislocation core [1]. Keeping in mind, that this equation needs to
be applied to a set of dislocations, which compose a LAGB, we introduce the
number of dislocations per unit length n { 1 / d
and thereby obtain the energy per unit area for the case of a symmetrical tilt
grain boundary:
J bsymm
where A
1
T Pb 2
ln
E
c T A B ln T
b 4S (1 Q ) T
(2.5)
calculation with equation 2.4 to experimental data [7] proves the validity of this
dislocation model, as the energy increase with increasing angle of rotation T is
predicted, accordingly, for angles T 15q [1].
11
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
termed high angle grain boundaries (HAGB). The current concept of the
structure of HAGBs was deduced from geometrical considerations, based on
dislocation models for LAGBs and atomistic simulations [5, 7, 9, 1].
Most commonly, the structure of interfaces is described by the coincidence
site lattice (CSL)- displacement shift complete (DSC) lattice construction. The
atomic arrangement in a perfect crystal is determined by the minimum of free
energy and any deviation of the former from ideal positions inevitably causes an
increase of the latter [2]. Consequently, it is safe to assume that the atoms will
remain close to their ideal position. At certain misorientations between two
crystallites, crystallographic planes exist that transcend the grain boundary from
one crystallite to the other, i. e. certain atomic positions in the grain boundary
coincide with ideal positions in both neighboring crystallites. These atomic
positions are termed coincidence sites and the super lattice containing these sites
on the other hand is the aforementioned coincidence site lattice (CSL). The
elementary cell of the CSL is self-evidently larger than the elementary cell of
the crystal lattice and its volume may be calculated in terms of the lattice
parameters of the crystal lattice. The CSL is characterized by the density of its
coincidence sites, which in turn are defined by the quantity 6 [2]:
(2.6)
12
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
a
a
a 5a 5
DSC latticeDSC
CSL CSL
CSL CSL
a
a
a
a)
Fig. 1-5:
b)
13
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
(D)
(H)
(E)
(])
(J)
Fig. 1-6:
(G)
(K)
The seven Bernal structures, of which the structural units of GBs are
composed [13, 38].
14
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
consists of these new structural units. This concept of structural units constitutes
our current understanding of grain boundary structures [1].
Analogously to the dislocation model of LAGBs, where the model by Read
and Shockley [6] applies, the CSL-DSC model is no longer valid above a
maximum deviation 'Z from exact CSL-misorientations, because the spacing of
the SGBDs decreases with increasing deviation. As such, the SGBDs above a
certain deviation of the misorientation angle tend to overlap and therefore lose
their individuality. The most common criterion for the maximum deviation
proposed by Brandon [15] reads:
'Z
15q
6
(2-7)
is assumed that the detachment of one atom from a crystal to join the crystal
across the boundary destroys a lattice site rather than creating a vacancy and that
its attachment to the adjacent crystal surface generates a new lattice site as
opposed to eliminating a vacancy [1].
Grain boundary
Grain 1
free energy G
Grain 2
Gm
Gm
p 3
Pb
16
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
v b
(2.8)
dG
dV
(2.9)
In that case, each atom attaching to the growing grain of volume :3 | b3 will
gain the energy pb3 The change in Gibbs free energy associated with this
process is schematically shown in Fig. 1-7. The grain boundary velocity then
reads:
Gm pb3
Gm
exp
v b exp
kT
kT
(2.10)
pb 3
G
bQ D exp m 1 exp
kT
kT
(2.11)
17
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
Further assuming that pb3<<kT for T t 0.3Tm , a series expansion of the second
exponential term
pb 3
pb 3
# 1
exp
kT
kT
(2.12)
b 4 vD
G
v
exp m p { m p
kT
kT
(2.13)
b 2 Dm
m
kT
H
m0 exp
kT
(2.14)
18
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
and H are the pre-exponential factor and activation enthalpy of the grain
boundary mobility. This simple model may be modified by assuming the
detachments to occur in a sequence of steps or thermal grain boundary vacancies
to assist diffusion [20]. However, these modifications will only affect the preexponential factor m0 and the activation enthalpy H of mobility m leaving the
migration rate v and the driving force p unaffected [1].
19
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
FA
0
0
0
F||
FA
0
(2.15)
P0 H M dH
H
0
&
&
&
H2
P0
1 F ij li l j
2
(2.16)
&
where P 0 is the vacuum permeability and H is the magnetic field strength. The
&
&
F H
(see eq.
2.15) and ls = cos4s are the cosines between the principal crystal axes and the
&
magnetic field H .
20
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
&
H
F
FH
a3
a2
a1
P0
H2
1 F l12 l22 F||l32
2
(2.17)
which since
l12 l22 l32 1 l12 l22 1 l32
(2.18)
21
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
2
H2
P0
F|| - F cos 3
1 F
2
'F
(2.19)
Thus, a general expression is obtained for the magnetic free energy density Z
associated with a given orientation of a zinc crystal in an external magnetic
field, dependent on only one spatial variable, 43, the angle between the
&
p Z1 Z2
H2
P0
'F cos2 1 cos2 2
2
(2.20)
where 41 and 4 2 are the angles between the c-axes in both neighboring
&
22
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
pm
Z Z
P0 H 2
2
1n
F F j
n j
cos2 j
1
j
P0 'FH 2 cos2
(2.21)
2
n
where 4 and 4 j are the angles between field direction and the principal axes of
the grain considered and its n neighboring grains. If 'F ! 0 (which is true for
Zn) and the condition cos2 1/ n n cos2 n 0 is met by the one grain
and its adjacent grains, the magnetic energy density Z in the one grain is lower
than the average energy density of its neighboring grains ( Z Z ). Thus, the
magnetic driving force promotes growth of the former grain, as then pm 0
[24].
The largest obtainable driving force is governed by the magnetic field
strength at disposal and the magnetic susceptibility difference 'F of the
material under investigation. In the case of zinc, the maximum driving force pm
is calculated to 1.2 kJ/m3 in high field magnets with a maximum field strength
of 25 Tesla. Considering the applicability for grain boundary migration
experiments, two major advantages over the capillary driving force (see section
1.6.2 below) are:
23
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
1.) The magnetic driving force facilitates the addressing of absolute grain
boundary mobility as opposed to reduced mobility, thus enabling the
migration measurements of crystallographically defined grain boundaries
and studying the inclination dependence of activation parameters.
2.) The possibility to adjust the magnitude of the driving force during the
experiment.
24
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK
1 1
'p J
R1 R2
(2.22)
where J is the grain boundary free energy and R1 , R2 are the main radii of
curvature under the assumption of boundary isotropy. Upon thermal activation
this driving force induces boundary motion in the direction towards the center of
curvature, causing a reduction of grain boundary area and, consequently, energy.
However, the use of the capillary driving force only permits to evaluate a
reduced boundary mobility, A
still part of the equation and thus factors into the obtained mobility values.
25
'LHVHV:HUNLVWFRS\ULJKWJHVFKW]WXQGGDUILQNHLQHU)RUPYHUYLHOIlOWLJWZHUGHQQRFKDQ'ULWWHZHLWHUJHJHEHQZHUGHQ
(VJLOWQXUIUGHQSHUV|QOLFKHQ*HEUDXFK